While scouring online, I found an interesting article entitled Why Do Pro-Life Activists Seem Only to Care About Unborn Lives?, written by an individual called Alan Levinovitz. This is a common objection to the pro-life argument (albeit often used as an ad hominem). Nevertheless, we pro-lifers are often accused of “only caring about the fetus” which could be considered something of a hypocrisy in the pro-life movement, so I might as well respond to it.
In my comparative ethics course, I use abortion as a case study. We consider Christian arguments, Buddhist arguments—yes, Buddhism has historically seen abortion as tragic—and secular philosophical arguments against the morality of abortion. I think the question is far from settled, and the definition of life is debatable. I strongly believe that those who are pro-choice, myself included, need to acknowledge this and seek out challenging dialogue partners to discuss it further rather than take the superiority of our position as a given. Fertilized eggs may indeed deserve more protection than they are currently granted, because there’s a solid case to be made for understanding them as unborn children.
The truth is that I want to engage in dialogue with pro-life advocates, but there are some questions that make it difficult for me to do so—and I expect that many other pro-choice advocates have them as well.
I could possibly say the same of pro-choice advocates. Nevertheless, I appreciate Levinovitz’ desire to have a productive discussion. I find it interesting that he says that “fertilized eggs” (the proper term is embryo, because by being fertilized, it is no longer an egg) might deserve more protection than they are currently granted. If there is even a solid possibility of them being children, then I do not think they should be killed, since I would rather pointlessly spare a clump of cells than accidentally kill a child.
Why, as I look out on the sea of signs at today’s the March for Life, do I see nothing about maternity leave, much less paternity leave? Why aren’t expansive parental leave policies front and center on every pro-life website, and on the lips of every pro-life politician?
Why does every speaker fail to mention contraception? Why isn’t sex education front and center on every pro-life website, and on the lips of every pro-life politician?
Why is adoption mentioned only in passing, if it is mentioned at all? As of this writing, MarchForLife.org’s “adoption” page still has “lorem ipsum” placeholder text. (Adoption was a focus of the 2014 march.*)
This is where I fear the ad hominem comes in, though perhaps not intentionally. Yes, I admit, some of these things, such as good parental practices, can be important, but in my mind, I think it is much more important to think about settling that it is always wrong to kill a child first and then maybe second we can talk about the alternatives. That seems to me the most reasonable, at any rate. As for contraception—I find abstinence and chastity rather frequently referenced by pro-lifers, which is generally more reliably effective than artificial contraception anyway, which can always fail.
Finally, in regard to adoption, I am unsure what Levinovitz means about it being a “lorem ipsum” placeholder. It does not seem to show up in the link Levinovitz provides, but perhaps it has been updated. But maybe pro-lifers do not talk about adoption enough. Yes, as far as I know, this sort of thing is often mentioned in crisis pregnancy centers, but maybe we should be doing it more. But once again, let us first focus on not murdering children and then we can consider the alternatives.
Why, if your movement “welcomes everyone,” as Ted Cruz and Cardinal Timothy Dolan both emphasized, do you focus so much on the Christian God? How do you expect to win over people like me if prayerful protest is more important to you than funding health services?
So this is the place where Levinovitz accuses Pro-Lifers of focusing too much on Christianity. He provides a link to show an example of this. Maybe this happens a lot, but then again, Ben Shapiro is fairly famous (who yes, is technically religious but not Christian), not to mention many pro-life philosophers who are either secular or, though religious, do not talk much about it in their activism. Later on, Levinovitz references the secular pro-life movement as an exception. If one talks to an actual pro-life apologist, chances are he will make an argument based on embryology. Nevertheless, Martin Luther King frequently referenced his own Christianity (him being a pastor). So naturally, my morality is influenced by Christianity, but my argument is from embryology—All innocent human beings have the right not to be killed. All fetuses are innocent human beings. Therefore, all fetuses have the right not to be killed.
To anyone looking in from the outside, the movement seems to be more about making public declarations of pious conservatism than advocating for life. It is, at heart, a religious movement, which explains the absence of contraception and sex education from the platform. It is also a politically conservative movement, which values small government more than the souls of unborn children and seeks to do little for them once they are born. In the (viral) words of Sister Joan Chittister:
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child orn but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
I think this is a somewhat strange claim, but I think I see whence it comes. But again, similar to the anti-segregationists sixty years ago, the fact that many of the proponents are very religious does not mean that it is not a natural (or “secular”) reason to ban abortion.
As for the claim that we are really advocating for small government under the guise of defending the rights of children, I think that is very odd since pro-lifers are actually calling for more regulations, not less—although in my mind, the regulation against child-murder is very much justified.
Finally, we bring up the topic of Pro-Lifers not “caring about children after they are born”. If I am understanding this argument correctly, Levinovitz is basically making this argument,
“Pro-lifers are opposed to killing children before birth, but they do not spend much time addressing the food and housing for children after they are born. Therefore, the Pro-life movement is a contradiction.”
Let me just reverse this, by saying the following,
“Pro-choice advocates spend a fair deal of time addressing the food and housing for children after they are born, but they are in favor of killing them legally before that point.”
Thinking that way, I think the pro-choice are the greater contradiction.
Now, a pro-choice advocate might object that he or she does not even believe a fetus to be a human being and therefore this supposed hypocrisy does not count. But all the same, one can easily see why, from a pro-life perspective, one would prioritize ending abortion, which ends more innocent lives than the things Levinovitz wishes we would talk about more.
Finally, it should be noted that plenty of pro-lifers do believe in a welfare state, but, crudely, even if they did not, I do not think it is that damning to the pro-life position to oppose murdering children without wanting the government to give everyone free stuff.
At the National Review, David French argues this angle is just a ploy to raise taxes and mocks those who share Chittister’s position. “The true concern,” he writes, “isn’t for child welfare but for transient notions of adult fulfillment, and no level of taxation will cure the selfishness of the human heart.”
But French is missing the point. The real argument is simply about the movement’s hypocrisy. If pro-life advocates genuinely saw saving unborn children as their top priority, then a significant number of them would also fight for a world in which all women and men can be confident that their children’s future will include education, food, and housing. Many would reject a political platform that cheers taxpayer funding of the military while simultaneously trying to cut health care funding—health care that might allow women to feel secure enough to bring a baby to term. And many would make contraception a central issue, instead of allowing religious prudery to take precedence over the unborn babies they are fighting for.
As I said already, there are plenty of pro-lifers who believe in a welfare state, and even if they did not, I think abortion causes far more deaths of innocent children than anything the Republican Party is supporting (which I assume is what Levinovitz is basically referencing). Furthermore, these are actually much more complicated issues than abortion. I think most people (although perhaps not Levinovitz) would agree that the military is something necessary for defending one’s own country and perhaps others as well and ultimately, the military can save lives. Now, it can be argued that many innocent people can die during war and perhaps the military gets involved in wars more than it should, leading to the death of innocents. But even so, some people may die during war, but every single person killed in abortion has done nothing wrong whatsoever. As for healthcare, I cannot overstate how debatable it is what is actually best for the people. I lived in Canada for a while and I cannot overstate that government-funded healthcare is not always better. Now, Levinovitz might debate this, but my point remains: those who oppose government-funded healthcare are not necessarily enemies of life. Debate our means, if you will, but none of this should discredit our motives.
As with any large movement, there are exceptions to these generalizations—notably secular pro-life activists. But listening to the speeches at the March for Life earlier Friday and reading through pro-life websites, I have no doubt that overall they hold true. And so, as I watch pro-lifers shout about defunding Planned Parenthood without proposing practical alternatives, I cannot yet sympathize with their cause.
Instead, I think of Matthew 6:5, where Jesus condemns the hypocrites who “love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen.”
All I can say is that I do not think we should blame everyone too much for not having practical alternatives off the top of their heads when they are having peaceful protests against legally killing over a million innocent children every year. Ask a crisis pregnancy center and one will probably get good help.
And now Levinovitz quotes scripture at us after accusing pro-lifers of being solely religiously motivated. But let us point out one other scripture verse, “There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” (Proverbs 6:16-17) Abortion is the shedding of very innocent blood, deliberately and willingly, and it should be illegal.
Bonum Certamen Certemus
I am the Catholic of Honor
Chivalric Apologetics 